Introduction
This essay examines the 1962 Western film *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance*, directed by John Ford, through the lens of political science, comparing its themes of power and authority to Niccolò Machiavelli’s seminal work, *The Prince* (1532). Set in the frontier town of Shinbone, the film narrates the transition from a lawless, violent society to one governed by order and democratic principles, primarily through the conflict between the idealistic lawyer Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart) and the brutal outlaw Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin). At first glance, Valance appears to embody the raw power described by Machiavelli as necessary for a ruler. However, this essay argues that despite Valance’s dominance in Shinbone, he does not align with Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince,” who must balance power with strategic cunning and legitimacy to maintain control. By exploring the dynamics of authority, legitimacy, and violence in the film, this analysis will reveal key similarities and divergences between the two works, particularly in how power is wielded and ultimately transformed. The discussion will first outline the central themes of *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance*, then compare these to Machiavelli’s principles, and finally evaluate why Valance falls short of the Machiavellian ideal.
Themes of Power and Transition in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
*The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* is a profound exploration of the political evolution of a frontier society. Shinbone, initially dominated by violence and fear under Valance’s reign, represents a state of nature where might supersedes right. Valance’s power is absolute yet rudimentary, relying on intimidation rather than any form of institutional legitimacy. However, the arrival of Ransom Stoddard, who advocates for law and education, introduces a competing vision of authority rooted in democratic ideals. The film thus dramatises a pivotal shift from anarchic violence to structured governance, a theme that resonates with political theories of state-building. Indeed, Stoddard’s eventual rise—built on the myth of his personal triumph over Valance—illustrates the complex interplay between perception and power, a concept not unfamiliar in political discourse. This narrative provides a rich ground for comparison with Machiavelli’s pragmatic view of leadership, where the ends often justify the means.
Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Nature of Power
In *The Prince*, Machiavelli offers a realist perspective on political authority, arguing that a ruler must be both feared and loved, but if forced to choose, fear is more reliable for maintaining control (Machiavelli, 1532). He emphasises the importance of virtù—personal skill and adaptability—and fortuna—fortune or circumstance—in securing power. A Machiavellian prince, therefore, is a strategic actor who uses violence decisively but judiciously, ensuring it serves the stability of their rule. Moreover, legitimacy, whether through heritage, conquest, or public perception, is crucial for long-term governance. As Skinner (1981) notes, Machiavelli’s ruler must appear virtuous while being prepared to act immorally if necessary, a duality that ensures both control and acceptance. This framework offers a useful lens for analysing the power dynamics in *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance*, particularly in assessing whether Valance’s dominance aligns with Machiavelli’s ideal.
Liberty Valance as a Failed Machiavellian Prince
Despite his apparent power, Liberty Valance fails to embody the qualities of a Machiavellian prince. While he instils fear in Shinbone, his rule lacks the strategic foresight and adaptability that Machiavelli deems essential. Valance’s violence is indiscriminate, serving no broader purpose beyond personal gain, which ultimately alienates the townsfolk and sows the seeds of his downfall. Furthermore, he lacks legitimacy; his authority is neither inherited nor earned through public consent, contrasting sharply with Machiavelli’s insistence on the importance of a ruler’s perceived right to govern (Machiavelli, 1532). In contrast, Stoddard—though initially weak—gains legitimacy through democratic ideals and the symbolic act of defeating Valance, even if the truth behind this act is more complex. Arguably, Stoddard’s ascent mirrors Machiavelli’s concept of crafting a public image to secure power, highlighting a key divergence between Valance’s crude dominance and the nuanced authority of a true prince.
Conclusion
In conclusion, *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* offers a compelling narrative of political transition that invites comparison with Machiavelli’s *The Prince*. While both works grapple with the role of violence and fear in establishing authority, the film ultimately demonstrates that raw power, as exemplified by Valance, is insufficient without legitimacy and strategic acumen—qualities central to Machiavelli’s ideal ruler. Valance’s failure to embody these traits marks him as a failed prince, unable to sustain his dominance in the face of evolving societal values. This analysis underscores the relevance of Machiavellian thought in understanding fictional political landscapes, suggesting that true authority requires a balance of force and perception. Further exploration of such themes could illuminate broader questions about the nature of power in transitional societies, both historical and contemporary.
References
- Machiavelli, N. (1532) The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriott. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
- Skinner, Q. (1981) Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
